Gossip website operator confident 'we just won'

Nik Richie, left, owner of gossip website TheDirty.com.
The Enquirer/Patrick Reddy
KY SARAH JONES KY JULY 11, 2013 Nik Richie (left), owner of the gossip website TheDirty.com leaves the Federal Courthouse in Covington with his lawyer, David Gingras, after a jury awarded Sarah Jones $338,000 in her defamation lawsuit against the website. The Enquirer/Patrick Reddy(Photo: The Enquirer/Patrick Reddy)Buy Photo

Story Highlights

Ex-Bengals cheerleader's win in defamation suit could be overturned.

Nik Richie, the controversial operator of the gossip website TheDirty.com, isn't one to hold back.

"We kicked their ass is what we did," the 35-year-old said after his lawyer went head to head with the lawyer of ex-Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones as the two argued in front of a federal appellate panel Thursday morning.

"We just won right there," Richie said.

While Richie won't know if he's right until the Downtown Cincinnati-based, three-judge panel issues a written ruling, his arrogance might be justified. The judges' questions and interjections during the lawyers' arguments seemed critical of the trial judge, who decided that the Communications Decency Act didn't offer immunity to Richie -- a ruling that largely counters most others made since the CDA's passage in 1996.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was composed of Judges Julia Smith Gibbons, Richard Griffin and, by phone, Ralph Guy. They'll decide whether Jones will keep the $338,000 judgment she was awarded by U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman from Richie, whose website in 2009 published anonymous posts claiming that Jones was promiscuous and had two sexually transmitted diseases.

The case centers on the federal Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress to help foster growth and free speech on the Internet by giving immunity to websites for content posted by their users. The law also encourages websites to self-police offensive material.

If Bertelsman's verdict stands, it could have broad implications for tech companies -- several of whom, including Google, Twitter and Facebook, filed briefs in support of Richie -- as well as the hundreds of thousands of websites that allow users to leave comments. At issue is whether Richie voided his immunity because he decides which of the thousands of submissions he receives to post online, and because he leaves comments alongside some of the posts.

Christopher Roach, Jones' lawyer, said Richie shouldn't have immunity because he encourages people to post potentially defamatory content.

"By his own testimony, Mr. Richie did say he wanted to pull in information that would knock people off their high horse, that would be insulting and humiliating," Roach told the panel. "It's not just asking people to post whatever they want."

During last year's trial, Bertelsman ruled four times against arguments over the CDA. In his ruling, he wrote that "a website owner who intentionally encourages illegal or actionable third-party postings to which he adds his own comments ratifying or adopting the posts become a 'creator' or 'develop' of that content and is not entitled to immunity."

He also concluded that the posts were "knowingly false or in reckless disregard for the truth," which would leave the site open to legal action even from celebrities and other public figures.

Gibbons was critical of the ruling.

"It's really hard to tell how, under Judge Bertelsman's rule, anyone who creates a site that allows posts by other people would not be seen to ratify their comments. And that specifically does not seem to be what the CDA had in mind," she said.

Sarah Jones, former Dixie Heights High School teacher and Cincinnati Ben-Gal cheerleader goes trough security after arriving at the Kenton County Justice Center in July 2012.
The Enquirer/Patrick Reddy

Like this topic? You may also like these photo galleries:

"Congress made a judgment that they really didn't want judges like us to go through and figure out if the editorial judgment was right or wrong. They really didn't want us to do this stuff," he said.

Griffin added that the law called for offended people to sue the creator of the offensive material -- as in, the anonymous poster on Richie's site -- which Roach acknowledged Jones hadn't tried to do.

Jones declined to comment after the hearing. The website case is unrelated to Jones' sexual relationship with a student when she taught at Dixie Heights High School in Edgewood, for which Jones pleaded guilty in October 2012 in state court to misdemeanor sexual misconduct and felony custodial interference. She isn't likely to serve prison time if she abides by the rules of her five-year probation.

David Gingras, Richie's lawyer, said it's easy to dismiss Richie as a creep, but he said the site has done good things. Last summer, it broke a story that Anthony Weiner, who then was running for New York mayor, was sexting again. The revelation derailed his campaign.

"I would argue that's a good thing -- to have a forum where you can share information that maybe mainstream news sources wouldn't publish," Gingras said.

He added that he's confident the panel will rule in his favor, but isn't worried if they don't.

"We will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never decided this area of law before," he said.